public void function(){
new Student().setName("john");
}
public void function(){
Student student = new Student();
student.setName("john");
}
Does GC behave differently for both of the snip?
I mean which case (CASE-1/CASE-2) is more GC efficient in terms of
Time?
Does GC behave differently for both of the snip?
No. Once the setName method has been invoked, the Student object created with new Student is no longer reachable and can be garbage collected.
I mean which case (CASE-1/CASE-2) is more GC efficient in terms of Time?
Neither is more efficient. The first case will have one less assignment in the bytecode. This does not affect GC whatsoever.
From the JLS
A reachable object is any object that can be accessed in any potential
continuing computation from any live thread.
In both snippets, after the invocation of setName, the Student object is no longer reachable (assuming the constructor and the setName method don't leak references to the object - but even in that case, the behavior of both snippets would be the same).
In the first case you don't assign the newly created object to a variable, hence it becomes unreachable for the code (and thus becomes a candidate for garbage collection) as soon as setName (String name) method returns.
In the second case local variable student will prevent the student object from being garbage collected until it goes out of scope. In other words, in the second snippet the student object will continue to be a live object after setName(String name) returns and will become a candidate for garbage collection only after the method function() returns.
UPDATE:
In terms of the time required for garbage collection both cases are equal since in all of them you end up having one garbage object.
Answer for question is no.
Gc behaves nearly same for both cases.
Garbage Collector has a unpredictable behavior. But
Any Object which is no longer referred or is no longer in use is eligible for garbage collection.
Case 1 : Main objective of anonymous object is for instant use (one time use). So after line "new Student().setName("john");" , your anonymous object is not in use so it will be GC.
case 2 : Student student = new Student();
student.setName("john");
After this line student reference is no longer referred so it will be GC.
There are few chances that in case 2 student reference may be leaked but GC is smart enough to handle this.
Now in case 1 if you want object for one time use then go for anonymous object as Objects are created in heap memory and GC sweep heap memory. Stack memory are managed in such way that memory used by stack is reclaimed automatically.
You can referred this link for more.
Related
This may be a very naive Question?
Suppose i have Class Something like this
class SlowConstructor {
private final int a;
private final String unReachableString;
public SlowConstructor(String random) {
unReachableString = "I am not reachable will GC will collect me " + random;
Thread.sleep(1000*3600); // ignoring Exception check for readbility
a = 100;
Thread.sleep(1000*3600);
}
}
So my question is if i create Many Objects of SlowConstructor (let say 50 in diff threads) and as you can see each Constructor will take two hours to complete. The String reference in SlowConstructor unReachableString is not reachable from any code for around two hours. If GC runs during this two hours will it not collect unReachableString ref ?. I assume it will not be Garbage Collected but then why? From where unReachableString is reachable ?
The String reference in SlowConstructor unReachableString is not reachable from any code for around two hours.
Incorrect. The SlowConstructor object is immediately reachable from the thread that is in the process of constructing it. So, therefore, is the string.
So that means that the String object won't be garbage collected before the constructor completes.
(And in fact, the string object corresponds to a String literal, and is therefore also reachable from the code (any code!) that assigns or applies a method to the literal.)
The concept of reachability includes any mechanism by which any current or future execution could use the object in question. That includes cases where the object hasn't been assigned to a named variable or array element ... yet.
As other have said GC is not going to affect a half-constructed object. But why? GC necessarily proceeds from a maximal set of root pointers. Anything that can be reached from these roots is "protected" from GC. This is either my marking as in mark-and-sweep collectors or by copying to a new active generation (arena) in a copying collector. Roots consist of the runtime stack, machine (virtual or physical) registers, and global pointers. When the constructor starts running, a pointer to the newly allocated record will be created. Either it will be a root or accessible from a root. So the GC will not collect it. Since the class instance under construction is accessible from a root, so is the string you're referring to. Therefore it can't be collected either.
So long as the threads weren't interrupted, your object will (eventually) instantiate, and (eventually) contain a value for unReachableString.
Strings are interned, and would be subject to garbage collection only if nothing referred to it - kind of like how garbage collection works now. The half-constructed object does refer to the interned string, so it would not be yet eligible for garbage collection.
I'm willing to bet that having fifty or so instances of this type floating around* wouldn't make a difference either - you then have fifty or so references to this string literal, and it wouldn't be yet eligible for garbage collection until these instances were eligible for garbage collection themselves.
*: OH GOD NO PLEASE DON'T DO THIS IN ACTUAL CODE PLEASE
It will not and should not be garbage collected. Sleeping thread is still a live thread.
Reachable in GC context means the following: if we go through the Stack will we find a reference pointing to this object (memory space) on the Heap.
In you case the answer is yes.
your logic is not correct, if thread is still alive it is in scope of method SlowConstructor. So JVM thinks that unReachableString string can be used so Garbacge Collection does not touch that reference.
According to the code you can assume that unReachableString is not used so it has to be Garbage Collected but JVM does not have intelligent logic to know the next. It just look at the scope of method and object reference.
As every java developers know java Objects will be garbage collected when no longer in use.
I want to know how JVM identify which object have to pick for garbage collection.
(say eg..If I have 10 objects. out of 10 if 2 objects are garbage collected how jvm finds that two object).
JVM uses "mark and sweep" algorithm(If im right).
1)For example i providing string object scenarios below
class Sample{
public static void main(Strings args[]){
String s1=new String("10");
String s2=new String("20");
String s3=new String("30");
String s4=new String("40");
String s5=new String("50");
String s6=new String("60");
String s7=new String("70");
s1=null; //now s1 is eligible for gc collection
s2=null; //now s2 is eligible for collection
}
}
//now s1 & s2 are eligible for gc collection.If i expicitly made to null references(s1,s2) become null but what happens to the memory allocated on heap? will it be freedup?
Actually nothing happens. The memory used by s1 and s2 will be reused only when GC starts working and this will only happen when JVM decides and it may never happen. In your case GC will hardly ever start.
It's covered fairly succinctly here: http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus5/html/page424.html
The mark-and-sweep algorithm is called a tracing garbage collector
because is traces out the entire collection of objects that are
directly or indirectly accessible by the program.
The objects that a program can access directly are those objects which
are referenced by local variables on the processor stack as well as by
any static variables that refer to objects. In the context of garbage
collection, these variables are called the roots . An object is
indirectly accessible if it is referenced by a field in some other
(directly or indirectly) accessible object.
So when you do s1=null; you are disconnecting the root, and the corresponding instance becomes eligible for collection.
The actual "collection" (freeing of the heap) occurs when the GC actually executes. As to exactly when this occurs there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to that. See What the frequency of the Garbage Collection in Java?
Assigning null to any reference doesn't free up the memory. It only makes the reference available to remove using garbage collector. Means now this reference allocated memory can be free when garbage collector will run.
If any live thread can't access the object by any means then that object becomes eligible for garbage collection. But there is no guarantee of GC to run as it depends upon JVM internal logic and algorithm.
Generally it happens when JVM thinks that its time to clear up some memory usage.
In your case s1 and s2 are eligible to be GCed but we can't say when it will happen.
An Object becomes eligible for Garbage collection or GC if its not reachable from any live threads or any static references
SEE HERE
Java objects are eligible for garbage collection when the reference count of that object is 0. Reference count being 0 indicates that "that particular object is not referenced by any variable, hence it can not be used anymore". Garbage collector in the first pass mark all such objects whose reference count is 0 and in the second pass it sweeps all the marked object. Hence it is mark and sweep algorithm.
will it be freedup?
It depends on the garbage collector, when the garbage collector re-run after you made the s1 and s2 null, then they will be eligible for garbage collected. But, making reference null won't immediately release the object from the memory
When does the object of type list, occupying memory, become eligible for garbage collection, Also where is the variable that holds reference to the list ? In the case of code below, there was no variable assigned to it.
CASE 1:
for (Integer i : returnList()) {
System.out.println(i);
}
In case of a code like:
CASE 2:
List list = returnList();
for (Integer i : list) {
System.out.println(i);
}
list = null;
We can take control of GC, Is there any ways to take care of that in the first case when no variable was assigned ?
To summarize:
What is the mechanism of referrence, without a reference variable to list is case 1?
Does list get eligible for GC'd when stack frame is popped ?
Any way to speed up the eligibility for GC'ing ?
What is the mechanism of referrence, without a reference variable to list is case 1?
There is an implicit reference to the list. This can be seen by understanding that enhanced for like that is translated into:
for(Iterator e = returnList().iterator(); e.hasNext(); ) {
Integer i = (Integer)e.Next();
System.out.println(i);
}
Here, e has a reference to an iterator on returnList, which itself has a reference to returnList. Thus, returnList is rooted as long as e is rooted which is only true while control is in the for loop. When control leaves the for body, e is eligible for collection, so returnList is eligible for collection.
Of course, all of this is assuming that
The owner of returnList isn't maintaining a reference to its return value.
The same list hasn't been returned to another caller and that other caller isn't maintaining a reference to the same list.
Does list get GC'd when stack frame is popped ?
Not necessarily. It will be eligible for collection when the JVM can determine that the referrent has no rooted references to it. Note that it does not necessarily immediately get collected.
Any way to speed up GC in case 1.
It can't be collected any sooner than control leaving the for loop. It might be collected after control leaves the for loop. Let the JVM worry about this.
Note that you can attempt a manual garbage collection via
System.gc();
but note that this might exhibit worse behavior because if it triggers a garbage collection, it might be a full garbage collection. Note that the JVM can ignore this request. You might be wasting a lot of CPU cycles here. Note that on a system with infinite memory, the garbage collector never needs to run. On such a system, requesting the garbage collector could be a complete waste of CPU cycles if the garbage collector obeys your request.
Let the JVM manage the garbage collections. The algorithms for it are highly tuned.
From SCJP page 256-257
The garbage collector does some magical, unknown operations, and when
it discovers an object that can't be reached by any live thread,it
will consider that object as eligible for deletion, and it might even
delete it at some point. (You guessed it; it also might not ever
delete it.) When we talk about reaching an object, we're really
talking about having a reachable reference variable that refers to the
object in question. If our Java program has a reference variable that
refers to an object, and that reference variable is available to a
live thread, then that object is considered reachable.
Setting an object to NULL might help to fasten when the GC deletes the object but it might as well not, you don't have control over that. The JVM will run GC when it senses that memory is running low and you can manually ask it to do so but nothing is guaranteed.
What is the mechanism of reference, without a reference variable to
list is case 1?
see next answer.
Does list get GC'd when stack frame is popped ?
The list is created on the heap - but if the only reference to it was on the stack it is eligible to be collected by GC. That doesn't mean that it'll happen any time soon though.
Any way to speed up GC in case 1.
You can't "speed up" GC, even by calling System.gc(); you're only "suggesting" that the GC can to do its work - again, it won't necessarily happen any time soon.
There's a lot of sense behind it too: say that your program has 2GB of memory to use and is currently using only 2KB - it does not justify GC stopping your program from running and clean the memory only because some objects are eligible for deletion.
You cannot take control of GC.It is managed by JVM. What you can manage is what objects should be available for garbage collection. Although , you can find out when garbage collector will run using finalize method. It is always called before an object is deleted
public class Demo{
static void create()
{
Demo o = new Demo();
}
public void finalize()
{
System.out.println("GC called");
}
public static void main (String ...ar)
{
for (long i=1;i<900000;i++) //Try changing values here
{
create();
}
}
}
Objects created inside the methods are available for GC when method is returned(just like local variables exist for duration of method).However if the method returns an object, it will not be avialble for garbage collection
public class Demo{
public void getDate()
{
Date o = new Date();
StringBuffer d = new StringBuffer(o.toString());
System.out.println(d);
return o;
}
public static void main (String ...ar)
{
Date x= getDate();
}
}
In the above code, object d is available for GC when the method returns. But object o will not be available for collection
When we write like this:
{
new A().test();
}
The memory of A will be collected by gc after this function return(I knew that it's possible for collection, not be collected right now). The question is, how does the jvm make sure the memory of A won't be realise during the test() excuting(I assume the gc is a independent thread). I thought the compiler may change the statement into this:
{
//cover it in a scope
{
A temp = new A();
temp.test();
}
//outside the scope, temp is no longer stay in stack, so that A's memory can be colllected
}
This is just a conjecture.
BTW, very sorry for my poor English, please use simple syntax(to answer or explain), thanks.
The compiler generates byte code that ensures there is a temporary reference to the A on the stack, somewhat like your example.
The gc checks for reachability of objects. Your object is allocated on the heap and a reference to it is placed on the stack of the current method being executed, which makes it reachable by the gc, so it won't be collected.
When your method returns that stack memory is not "reachable" anymore, so that single reference to the object in the heap is gone, so the gc is free to mark it for collection.
Your "temp" variable is just a pretty name for that reference that the compiler creates anyway.
Help me settle a dispute with a coworker:
Does setting a variable or collection to null in Java aid in garbage collection and reducing memory usage? If I have a long running program and each function may be iteratively called (potentially thousands of times): Does setting all the variables in it to null before returning a value to the parent function help reduce heap size/memory usage?
That's old performance lore. It was true back in 1.0 days, but the compiler and the JVM have been improved to eliminate the need (if ever there was one). This excellent IBM article gets into the details if you're interested: Java theory and practice: Garbage collection and performance
From the article:
There is one case where the use of explicit nulling is not only helpful, but virtually required, and that is where a reference to an object is scoped more broadly than it is used or considered valid by the program's specification. This includes cases such as using a static or instance field to store a reference to a temporary buffer, rather than a local variable, or using an array to store references that may remain reachable by the runtime but not by the implied semantics of the program.
Translation: "explicitly null" persistent objects that are no longer needed. (If you want. "Virtually required" too strong a statement?)
The Java VM Spec
12.6.1 Implementing Finalization
Every object can be characterized by two attributes: it may be reachable, finalizer-reachable, or unreachable, and it may also be unfinalized, finalizable, or finalized.
A reachable object is any object that can be accessed in any potential continuing computation from any live thread. Optimizing transformations of a program can be designed that reduce the number of objects that are reachable to be less than those which would naively be considered reachable. For example, a compiler or code generator may choose to set a variable or parameter that will no longer be used to null to cause the storage for such an object to be potentially reclaimable sooner.
Discussion
Another example of this occurs if the values in an object's fields are stored in registers. The program may then access the registers instead of the object, and never access the object again. This would imply that the object is garbage.
The object is reachable if it can be involved in any potential continuing computation. So if your code refers to a local variable, and nothing else refers to it, then you might cause the object to be collected by setting it to null. This would either give a null pointer exception, or change the behaviour of your program, or if it does neither you didn't need the variable in the first place.
If you are nulling out a field or an array element, then that can possibly make sense for some applications, and it will cause the memory to be reclaimed faster. Once case is creating a large array to replace an existing array referenced by a field in a class - if the field in nulled before the replacement is created, then it may relieve pressure on the memory.
Another interesting feature of Java is that scope doesn't appear in class files, so scope is not relevant to reachability; these two methods create the same bytecode, and hence the VM does not see the scope of the created object at all:
static void withBlock () {
int x = 1;
{
Object a = new Object();
}
System.out.println(x+1);
}
static void withoutBlock () {
int x = 1;
Object a = new Object();
System.out.println(x+1);
}
Not necessarily. An object becomes eligible for garbage collection when there are no live threads anymore that hold a reference to the object.
Local variables go out of scope when the method returns and it makes no sense at all to set local variables to null - the variables disappear anyway, and if there's nothing else that holds a reference the objects that the variables referred to, then those objects become eligible for garbage collection.
The key is not to look at just variables, but look at the objects that those variables refer to, and find out where those objects are referenced by your program.
It is useless on local variables, but it can be useful/needed to clear up instance variables that are not required anymore (e.g. post-initialization).
(Yeah yeah, I know how to apply the Builder pattern...)
That could only make some sense in some scenario like this:
public void myHeavyMethod() {
List hugeList = loadHugeListOfStuff(); // lots of memory used
ResultX res = processHugeList(hugeList); // compute some result or summary
// hugeList = null; // we are done with hugeList
...
// do a lot of other things that takes a LOT of time (seconds?)
// and which do not require hugeList
...
}
Here it could make some benefit to uncomment the hugeList = null line, I guess.
But it would certainly make more sense to rewrite the method (perhaps refactoring into two,
or specifying an inner scope).
Setting an object reference to null only makes it eligible for garbage collection.
It does not necessarily free up the memory,which depends on when the garbage collector runs(which depends on JVM).
When the garbage collector runs,it frees up the heap by deleting only the objects which are eligible for garbage collection.
It is a good to have. When you set objects to null, there is a possibility that the object can be garbage collected faster, in the immediate GC cycle. But there is no guaranteed mechanism to make an object garbage collected at a given time.